Allowed

Smt. G. R. Sheela v. Sri. K. B. Yuvaraj

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2024WP/15144/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced interim maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC for a deserted wife and two minor children. The Court elevated the monthly allowance from Rs.5,000 to Rs.30,000 based on the respondent's substantial income, citing Supreme Court precedents regarding the duty of sustenance.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced interim maintenance to Rs.30,000 per month for the petitioners, additional to educational expenses.

Smt. G. R. Sheela Vs Sri. K. B. Yuvaraj — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 15144 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. G. R. SHEELA W/O K.B. YUVARAJ, D/O M RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE.

¶10

Y AVANI Y CARNER Y S/O K.B. YUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, STUDENT.

¶11

DHYANCHAND Y CARNER S/O K.B. YUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, STUDENT.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. G R SHEELA

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NERALAGUNTE VILLAGE, NAYAKANAHATTI HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. BALARAJ A. C., ADV.)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. K. B. YUVARAJ B.A. B.ED., M.PHIL, DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION S/O BASAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF KONASAGARA VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536 PRESENTLY WORKING AT DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE COLLEGE, NAVILE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577216.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M., ADV.)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY MONTHLY INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 COLLECTIVELY A SUM OF RS.75,000/- PER MONTH AS SOUGHT BY THEM IN THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED IN CRL.MISC.NO.377 OF 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners, wife and the two children are before this Court seeking a direction for enhancement of monthly maintenance as awarded by the concerned Court in Crl.Misc.No.377/2022. The enhancement sought is Rs.25,000/- each, totally Rs.75,000/- per month.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶29

Heard the learned counsel Sri.A.C.Balaraj

¶30

appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri.Siddappa appearing for the respondent.

¶31

The first petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children born from the wedlock of the first petitioner and the respondent. They two get married on 23.04.2006 and the relationship between the two after birth of the two children appears to have floundered. On floundering of the relationship, the first petitioner files Crl.Misc.No.377/2022 invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the hands of the respondent/husband for herself and their children, who were staying with the mother, the first petitioner. The concerned Court by the order dated 03.12.2022, grants an ex parte interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and the children

¶32

put together and directs educational expenses of the children to be taken care of by the respondent/husband. The petitioner/wife and the children have preferred the

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶34

subject petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance, as the amount so awarded is so meager that no care can be taken of the children or herself. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition seeking to contend that the amount of Rs.5,000/as granted by the concerned Court towards maintenance of the wife and the two children is so meager, as no life can be led worth the name in the said amount of maintenance and the children have grown up and are aged 12 years and 14 years respectively. Therefore, he would submit that this Court should enhance the maintenance as is sought for by them.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/husband would submit that educational expenses of the children are taken care of by the husband and the wife would not need any amount more than Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the order so passed by the concerned Court does not warrant interference.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶39

the husband has admitted in the statement of objections as to the amount of earning that he has and therefore the maintenance should be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- to what is sought for.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶41

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute and

¶42

the relationship between the protagonist to the petition is

¶43

also not in dispute. The issue relates to the grant of maintenance. The wife invokes Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and

¶44

seeks maintenance from the hands of the husband for herself and the two children born from the wedlock. The Court considers the entire spectrum of the issue between the petitioners and the father, records all the submissions

¶45

but grants a meager sum of Rs.5,000/-. It is not a case where husband has no earning to maintain the wife and the children to a comfortable life. The statement of

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶48

objections of the husband filed before this Court is evidenced enough for the earning of the husband as obtaining in paragraph 4, which reads as follows:

¶49

“4. The respondent maintained the welfare of the parents and joint family members and education expenses of his uncle children’s. The respondent taking gross salary of Rs.1,40,204/- after deduction Rs.83,589/- and after deduction of personal loan Rs.22,743/- and remaining amount Rs.60,846/-.The trail Court considered the same and award the interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1. Further direction to respondent to look after the educational expenses of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is correct.”

¶50

The gross salary of the husband is said to be

¶51

Rs.1,40,204/- and after statutory deductions, comes to Rs.83,589/-- The husband has projected certain personal loan to be paid at Rs.22,000/-, which does not merit any acceptance. Therefore, Rs.83,589/- can be taken as the income of the husband. It is averred in the said paragraph that he has to maintain his uncle’s children as he is in a

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶54

joint family. The contention on the strength of the said paragraph is noted only to be rejected. As long as the first petitioner and respondent are couple, legally wedded, it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and children, not maintain his uncle’s children in priority to children of his own. Therefore, in the light of the income of the husband at Rs.83,589/-, the petition deserves acceptance for enhancement of maintenance, as the Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments rendered as the enhancement of maintenance looking at the cost of living ensuing wife and children from time to time. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI VS. SHAHID KHAN¹ has held as follows:

¶55

“ 14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs 17,654. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs 2000. In

¶56

1 (2015) 5 SCC 705)

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶59

today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs 2000 per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶62

beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

¶63

15. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC p. 12, para 8)

¶64

“8. … The court has to consider the

¶65

status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶68

and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”

¶69

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316:(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], it has been ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

¶70

“6. … Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶73

position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .”

¶74

17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

¶75

18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52:AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus:(SCC OnLine Del para 7)

¶76

7. … an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:1632 WP No. 15144 of 2023

¶79

exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him.”

¶80

In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the

¶81

Hon’ble Apex Court and the income of the husband as projected in the statement of objections itself, I deem it appropriate to enhance the interim maintenance granted by the concerned Court to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- that is granted, which would however be subject to further orders before the concerned Court in Crl.Misc.No.377/2022. This is apart from the fact that the husband will bear all educational expenses of the children.

¶82

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Smt. G. R. Sheela v. Sri. K. B. Yuvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G. R. Sheela v. Sri. K. B. Yuvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. K. R. Beverages Vs M/S. Canara Bank

Smt Parvathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Niranjan Kumar Dadhichi Vs the Bangalore City Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Sri.S.Nagaraju Vs Smt.Mangala

Topsack Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka